Similar to this question, we have FIFO queues and the messages must be processed in order. We want competing consumers from different machines for redundancy and performance reasons, but only one consumer on one machine should handle a message for a given queue at a time.
I tried setting the prefetch count to 1, but I believe this will only work if used with a single machine. Is this possible by default with RabbitMQ or do we need to implement our own lock?
Given a single queue with multiple consumers there is no way to block one of the consumers, all of them receive the messages in round-robin fashion.
EDIT
See https://www.rabbitmq.com/consumers.html#single-active-consumer
/EDIT
You could see this plugin, https://github.com/rabbitmq/rabbitmq-consistent-hash-exchange to distribute the load using different queues.
I tried setting the prefetch count to 1
prefetch=1 means that the consumers take one message at a time.
do we need to implement our own lock
Yes, If you want one single consumer for queue avoiding other consumers.
EDIT
There are also the Exclusive Queues https://www.rabbitmq.com/queues.html#exclusive-queues but note:
Exclusive queues are deleted when their declaring connection is closed or gone (e.g. due to underlying TCP connection loss). They, therefore, are only suitable for client-specific transient state.
Related
I have a question about multi consumer concurrency.
I want to send works to rabbitmq that comes from web request to distributed queues.
I just want to be sure about order of works in multiple queues (FIFO).
Because this request comes from different users eech user requests/works must be ordered.
I have found this feature with different names on Azure ServiceBus and ActiveMQ message grouping.
Is there any way to do this in pretty RabbitMQ ?
I want to quaranty that customer's requests must be ordered each other.
Each customer may have multiple requests but those requests for that customer must be processed in order.
I desire to process quickly incoming requests with using multiple consumer on different nodes.
For example different customers 1 to 1000 send requests over 1 millions.
If I put this huge request in only one queue it takes a lot of time to consume. So I want to share this process load between n (5) node. For customer X 's requests must be in same sequence for processing
When working with event-based systems, and especially when using multiple producers and/or consumers, it is important to come to terms with the fact that there usually is no such thing as a guaranteed order of events. And to get a robust system, it is also wise to design the system so the message handlers are idempotent; they should tolerate to get the same message twice (or more).
There are way to many things that may (and actually should be allowed to) interfere with the order;
The producers may deliver the messages in a slightly different pace
One producer might miss an ack (due to a missed package) and will resend the message
One consumer may get and process a message, but the ack is lost on the way back, so the message is delivered twice (to another consumer).
Some other service that your handlers depend on might be down, so that you have to reject the message.
That being said, there is one pattern that servicebus-systems like NServicebus use to enforce the order messages are consumed. There are some requirements:
You will need a centralized storage (like a sql-server or document store) that allows for conditional updates; for instance you want to be able to store the sequence number of the last processed message (or how far you have come in the process), but only if the already stored sequence/progress is the right/expected one. Storing the user-id and the progress even for millions of customers should be a very easy operation for most databases.
You make sure the queue is configured with a dead-letter-queue/exchange for retries, and then set your original queue as a dead-letter-queue for that one again.
You set a TTL (for instance 30 seconds) on the retry/dead-letter-queue. This way the messages that appear on the dead-letter-queue will automatically be pushed back to your original queue after some timeout.
When processing your messages you check your storage/database if you are in the right state to handle the message (i.e. the needed previous steps are already done).
If you are ok to handle it you do and update the storage (conditionally!).
If not - you nack the message, so that it is thrown on the dead-letter queue. Basically you are saying "nah - I can't handle this message, there are probably some other message in the queue that should be handled first".
This way the happy-path is to process a great number of messages in the right order.
But if something happens and a you get a message out of band, you will throw it on the retry-queue (the dead-letter-queue) and Rabbit will make sure it will get back in the queue to be retried at a later stage. But only after a delay.
The beauty of this is that you are able to handle most of the situations that may interfere with processing the message (out of order messages, dependent services being down, your handler being shut down in the middle of handling the message) in exact the same way; by rejecting the message and letting your infrastructure (Rabbit) take care of it being retried after a while.
(Assuming the OP is asking about things like ActiveMQs "message grouping:)
This isn't currently built in to RabbitMQ AFAIK (it wasn't as of 2013 as per this answer) and I'm not aware of it now (though I haven't kept up lately).
However, RabbitMQ's model of exchanges and queues is very flexible - exchanges and queues can be easily created dynamically (this can be done in other messaging systems but, for example, if you read ActiveMQ documentation or Red Hat AMQ documentation you'll find all of the examples in the user guides are using pre-declared queues in configuration files loaded at system startup - except for RPC-like request/response communication).
Also it is very easy in RabbitMQ for a consumer (i.e., message consuming thread) to consume from multiple queues.
So you could build, on top of RabbitMQ, a system where you got your desired grouping semantics.
One way would be to create dynamic queues: The first time a customer order was seen or a new group of customer orders a queue would be created with a unique name for all messages for that group - that queue name would be communicated (via another queue) to a consumer who's sole purpose was to load-balance among other consumers that were responsible for handling customer order groups. I.e., the load-balancer would pull off of its queue a message saying "new group with queue name XYZ" and it would find in a pool of order group consumer a consumer which could take this load and pass it a message saying "start listening to XYZ".
Another way to do it is with pub/sub and topic routing - each customer order group would get a unique topic - and proceed as above.
RabbitMQ Consistent Hash Exchange Type
We are using RabbitMQ and we have found a plugin. It use Consistent Hashing algorithm to distribute messages in order to consistent keys.
For more information about Consistent Hashing ;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_hashing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viaNG1zyx1g
You can find this plugin from rabbitmq web page
plugin : rabbitmq_consistent_hash_exchange
https://www.rabbitmq.com/plugins.html
If I have two queues from which I want to consume messages, and I use a single SimpleMessageQueueListenerContainer for it, in which order would the listeners be invoked/messages consumed when both queues have messages?
I will try to be more specific of the problem I am working on:
I have a consumer application which needs to consume messages from 2 queues – say regular-jobs-queue and infrequent-jobs-queue. If there are any messages in ‘infrequent-jobs-queue’ I want to consume those before consuming messages from ‘regular-jobs-queue’. I might not be able to combine these and put all messages into a single rabbitmq level priority queue and assign higher priority to infrequent-job message because of some upcoming use-cases like purging regular-jobs without affecting infrequent-jobs and others.
I am aware that RabbitMQ has support for consumer priority but I am not very sure if it will be applicable here. I want all instances of my consumer application to first consume messages of infrequent-jobs-queue if any and not prioritize amongst these consumers.
Or should I like have 2 containers, with dedicated consumer thread(s) per queue and have an internal priority-queue data structure into which I can put messages as and when consumed from rabbitmq queue.
Any help would be really appreciated. Thanks.
~Rashida
You can't do what you want; messages will be delivered with equal priority.
Moving them to an internal in-memory queue will risk message loss.
You might want to consider using one of the RabbitTemplate.receive() or receiveAndConvert() methods instead of a message-driven container.
That way you have complete control.
I have one direct exchange. There is also one queue, bound to this exchange.
I have two consumers for that queue. The consumers are manually ack'ing the messages once they've done the corresponding processing.
The messages are logically ordered/sorted, and should be processed in that order. Is it possible to enforce that all messages are received and processed sequentially accross consumer A and consumer B? In other words, prevent A and B from processing messages at the same time.
Note: the consumers are not sharing the same connection and/or channel. This means I cannot use <channel>.basicQoS(1);.
Rationale of this question: both consumers are identicall. If one goes down, the other queue starts processing messages and everything keeps working without any required intervention.
One approach to handling failover in a case where you want redundant consumers but need to process messages in a specific order is to use the exclusive consumer option when setting up the bind to the queue, and to have two consumers who keep trying to bind even when they can't get the exclusive lock.
The process is something like this:
Consumer A starts first and binds to the queue as an exclusive consumer. Consumer A begins processing messages from the queue.
Consumer B starts next and attempts to bind to the queue as an exclusive consumer, but is rejected because the queue already has an exclusive consumer.
On a recurring basis, consumer B attempts to get an exclusive bind on the queue but is rejected.
Process hosting consumer A crashes.
Consumer B attempts to bind to the queue as an exclusive consumer, and succeeds this time. Consumer B starts processing messages from the queue.
Consumer A is brought back online, and attempts an exclusive bind, but is rejected now.
Consumer B continues to process messages in FIFO order.
While this approach doesn't provide load sharing, it does provide redundancy.
Even though this is already answered. May be this can help others.
RabbitMQ has a feature known as Single Active Consumer, which matches your case.
We can have N consumers attached to a Queue but only 1 (one) of them will be actively consuming messages from the Queue. Fail-over happens only when active consumer fails.
Kindly take a look at the link https://www.rabbitmq.com/consumers.html#single-active-consumer
Thank you
Usually the point of a MQ system is to distribute workload. Of course, there are some situations where processing of message N depends on result of processing the message N-1, or even the N-1 message itself.
If A and B can't process messages at the same time, then why not just have A or just B? As I see it, you are not saving anything with having 2 consumers in a way that one can work only when the other one is not...
In your case, it would be best to have one consumer but to actually do the parallelisation (not a word really) on the processing part.
Just to add that RMQ is distributing messages evenly to all consumers (in round-robin fashion) regardless on any criteria. Of course this is when prefetch is set to 1, which by default it is. More info on that here, look for "fair dispatch".
I have a middleware based on Apache Camel which does a transaction like this:
from("amq:job-input")
to("inOut:businessInvoker-one") // Into business processor
to("inOut:businessInvoker-two")
to("amq:job-out");
Currently it works perfectly. But I can't scale it up, let say from 100 TPS to 500 TPS. I already
Raised the concurrent consumers settings and used empty businessProcessor
Configured JAVA_XMX and PERMGEN
to speed up the transaction.
According to Active MQ web Console, there are so many messages waiting for being processed on scenario 500TPS. I guess, one of the solution is scale the ActiveMQ up. So I want to use multiple brokers in cluster.
According to http://fuse.fusesource.org/mq/docs/mq-fabric.html (Section "Topologies"), configuring ActiveMQ in clustering mode is suitable for non-persistent message. IMHO, it is true that it's not suitable, because all running brokers use the same store file. But, what about separating the store file? Now it's possible right?
Could anybody explain this? If it's not possible, what is the best way to load balance persistent message?
Thanks
You can share the load of persistent messages by creating 2 master/slave pairs. The master and slave share their state either though a database or a shared filesystem so you need to duplicate that setup.
Create 2 master slave pairs, and configure so called "network connectors" between the 2 pairs. This will double your performance without risk of loosing messages.
See http://activemq.apache.org/networks-of-brokers.html
This answer relates to an version of the question before the Camel details were added.
It is not immediately clear what exactly it is that you want to load balance and why. Messages across consumers? Producers across brokers? What sort of concern are you trying to address?
In general you should avoid using networks of brokers unless you are trying to address some sort of geographical use case, have too many connections for a signle broker to handle, or if a single broker (which could be a pair of brokers configured in HA) is not giving you the throughput that you require (in 90% of cases it will).
In a broker network, each node has its own store and passes messages around by way of a mechanism called store-and-forward. Have a read of Understanding broker networks for an explanation of how this works.
ActiveMQ already works as a kind of load balancer by distributing messages evenly in a round-robin fashion among the subscribers on a queue. So if you have 2 subscribers on a queue, and send it a stream of messages A,B,C,D; one subcriber will receive A & C, while the other receives B & D.
If you want to take this a step further and group related messages on a queue so that they are processed consistently by only one subscriber, you should consider Message Groups.
Adding consumers might help to a point (depends on the number of cores/cpus your server has). Adding threads beyond the point your "Camel server" is utilizing all available CPU for the business processing makes no sense and can be conter productive.
Adding more ActiveMQ machines is probably needed. You can use an ActiveMQ "network" to communicate between instances that has separated persistence files. It should be straight forward to add more brokers and put them into a network.
Make sure you performance test along the road to make sure what kind of load the broker can handle and what load the camel processor can handle (if at different machines).
When you do persistent messaging - you likely also want transactions. Make sure you are using them.
If all running brokers use the same store file or tx-supported database for persistence, then only the first broker to start will be active, while others are in standby mode until the first one loses its lock.
If you want to loadbalance your persistence, there were two way that we could try to do:
configure several brokers in network-bridge mode, then send messages
to any one and consumer messages from more than one of them. it can
loadbalance the brokers and loadbalance the persistences.
override the persistenceAdapter and use the database-sharding middleware
(such as tddl:https://github.com/alibaba/tb_tddl) to store the
messages by partitions.
Your first step is to increase the number of workers that are processing from ActiveMQ. The way to do this is to add the ?concurrentConsumers=10 attribute to the starting URI. The default behaviour is that only one thread consumes from that endpoint, leading to a pile up of messages in ActiveMQ. Adding more brokers won't help.
Secondly what you appear to be doing could benefit from a Staged Event-Driven Architecture (SEDA). In a SEDA, processing is broken down into a number of stages which can have different numbers of consumer on them to even out throughput. Your threads consuming from ActiveMQ only do one step of the process, hand off the Exchange to the next phase and go back to pulling messages from the input queue.
You route can therefore be rewritten as 2 smaller routes:
from("activemq:input?concurrentConsumers=10").id("FirstPhase")
.process(businessInvokerOne)
.to("seda:invokeSecondProcess");
from("seda:invokeSecondProcess?concurentConsumers=20").id("SecondPhase")
.process(businessInvokerTwo)
.to("activemq:output");
The two stages can have different numbers of concurrent consumers so that the rate of message consumption from the input queue matches the rate of output. This is useful if one of the invokers is much slower than another.
The seda: endpoint can be replaced with another intermediate activemq: endpoint if you want message persistence.
Finally to increase throughput, you can focus on making the processing itself faster, by profiling the invokers themselves and optimising that code.
I have a somewhat unique use case with RabbitMQ and I'm not sure how to go about solving the problem. I want to have one queue with multiple consumers bound to it and then have RabbitMQ send out one message to only one consumer at at time and wait for an ACK before sending out another message to any other consumer.
I realize this kills throughput and can essentially starve the other consumers but for me that's OK. The reason for this odd use case is that the service that the consumers talk to can only handle one concurrent request at a time so I need a way to limit this but consumers can also die unexpectedly and I need another consumer to pick up processing the messages if this happens. I know there is the prefetch option but that still allows multiple users to get a and exclusive queues but I'm not sure those accomplish what I want. Is it possible configure RabbitMQ to do this?
No; there is no way to limit competing consumers on the same queue such that there is one and only one message in process across all consumers until the ack is received.
A similar question came up some time ago; I don't remember if it was here or in the Spring forums but I believe the solution was to have the consumers acquire a global lock of some kind, using something like hazelcast, or even a simple database table row lock (with prefetch=1 so each consumer had only one "in process" message which was processed as and when each one got the lock).